Scott, we have always had this problem. The Republican states are trying to fix the issue because they can and because we have something like 14 million illegals that the democrats are trying to get to be able to vote. Even if a small percentage of the illegals get to vote, it can completely change the voting dynamics in the country.

The exception you are taking with Nixon is not the argument. Regardless of Nixon the man, the election for Kennedy was rigged by the crooks in Cook County in Chicago by counting peoples ballots that had been dead. That one county swayed an entire election. Regardless of who Nixon was, that was wrong.

Why does it matter if their was a plane full of money John? Thought you were into the share the wealth thing. Besides, democrats controlled the money for the war since 2006. Why didn't they care?

Wes, John, and others. You still avoid the main question. Why do ALL democrat proposed treaties involved moving money out of the country to the UN? You guys seem to be angry at corporations for moving out of the country, so why are you not mad at the real issue of laws and treaties that make them have to move off shore? And Wes, I am not really wanting to dig up old stuff but there is more to the context to that question at that time.

Look Delta, it's not our job to come in here and school every guy who's knowledge on any subject is from the Fox News school of puppet mastering. Yeah it was Iraq's money. So we are paying them for the oil we used to liberate and protect them. We didn't spend a dime there and we didn't have 4500 dead Americans or 32K wounded, and we don't have a long term monetary commitment to all those vets who will suffer long term effects from the war.

I am into the "share the wealth" thing. I'm not into giving money away. I'm into a sound economic system that results in the wealth being shared.

The bottom line is that both political parties have a share the wealth attitude with the world because that's what makes the American dollar such a strong currency.

Look Delta, it's not our job to come in here and school every guy who's knowledge on any subject is from the Fox News school of puppet mastering. Yeah it was Iraq's money. So we are paying them for the oil we used to liberate and protect them. We didn't spend a dime there and we didn't have 4500 dead Americans or 32K wounded, and we don't have a long term monetary commitment to all those vets who will suffer long term effects from the war.

I am into the "share the wealth" thing. I'm not into giving money away. I'm into a sound economic system that results in the wealth being shared.

The bottom line is that both political parties have a share the wealth attitude with the world because that's what makes the American dollar such a strong currency.

Did you vote for Ron Paul in the Primary?

This is why the good old boy politicians want to disenfranchise the military vote...

It is not about fox news. I am asking people to look at the body of work on the treaties that have been proposed and even campaigned for by democrats and for people make up their own mind as to why. I am connecting my own dots. Others need to pay attention as to what is going on around them. Regardless, you made the comment about money going to Iraq. I am not into "sharing" the wealth. Sharing traditionally involves everyone equally regardless of contribution. I am not into that. That completely ignores the human condition. I am interested in making sure there is sharing of opportunity for Americans.

I understand that. But do you really think that if things go bad and the well runs dry that the govt won't step in with taxpayer dollars? Weren't Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae supposed to stand on their own?

Why do you want the govt to guarantee private sector defined benefit pensions? I don't even want the govt to guarantee public sector defined benefit pensions. They are fiscally irresponsible.

I don't want the government to guarantee anything. If you read the article though you would know that this represents the very the definition of cronyism. When, instead of treating people fairly, you treat them based on their affiliations and based on their beliefs, the very idea of liberty is violated. This the epitome of "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." If you can't recognize the injustice in this case you are a lost cause.

I don't want the government to guarantee anything. If you read the article though you would know that this represents the very the definition of cronyism. When, instead of treating people fairly, you treat them based on their affiliations and based on their beliefs, the very idea of liberty is violated. This the epitome of "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." If you can't recognize the injustice in this case you are a lost cause.

Another way to look at it would be to fix the problem in the first place by getting rid of the ability of corps to scrape off their pension obligations through BK. If pension fund obligations were treated like secured creditors things would go down differently too.

I don't know for a fact but I'd strongly suspect that Romney used this same tactic at Bain -- running companies through Ch 11 to get rid of their pension obligations. It has been a tried and true corporate reorg strategy for years. Just ask Delta pilots.

"Jeremy. You again can not read for context. You said he is a progressive. He is not a European socialist. Look up what progressive is and you will find that Obama is that."

Why don't you look up the meaning of Progressive? You are dead wrong in saying that it only means "european socialist". You can paint Romney with whatever brush the GOP and Teabaggers give you, but you can't hide what he did as governor. Doing the contrary only makes you look disingenuous.

What is your point? It appears as though Bain was managed by prudent business people who knew the laws and knew how to get the most profit of a deal. Did you take any deductions on your taxes? Shame on you! You clearly used the system to your benefit. It is not Bain's fault that the Italian government set up a system like they did. Italy isn't exactly the most prudent entity when it comes to business.

This is the Pro-Obama add that I like the best:

Quote:

According to a notice in the Kansas City Star uncovered by Politico, Soptic's wife died in June 2006. That's five years after the GST Steel plant was closed in 2001 and more than seven years after Romney left management of Bain to work on the 2002 Olympics in February 1999.

Quote:

As tragic as this story is, it has little to do with Bain. By 1999 GSI had $53 million in net losses. How long does Mitt Romney owe Joe Soptic health care? And why is Soptic blaming Romney alone? Surely he could also blame unions for injecting tremendous costs into doing business, or blame the international marketplace for existing, or blame innovation in his own industry for making many jobs superfluous. And guess what? When investors reallocated money from a failing project to a productive one (as they occasionally do) a whole bunch of other people ó sometimes more people ó benefit from health care insurance. Not exactly the stuff of political ad copy.

"but the real kicker is the fact the guy says he won't vote for Obama."

You post a PAC video that has comments from Joe Soptic and then you post this other link. It is extremely misleading (not sure if you intended to be or not) because you make it seem as if Joe said "he won't vote for Obama" when in actuality, that link contains an article about another laid off steel worker Donnie Box. It never mentions Soptic in the story. So what is the "real kicker"?

"I'll probably stop working, go back to farming, and take care of my own. What I won't do is contribute to the system... ala your favorite author Ayn Rand..."

So if your self-proclaimed, "lessor of two evils" wins, will you still stop working and go back to farming and not contribute to the system?

How do you figure? With Obama the efforts of my work are going to be taken away and given to somebody who does not work... Someone who didn't build that...

With Romney at least we have a chance that he can turn things around. Hopefully a conservative congress will tie his progressive hands. We have to reverse obamacare, it can't work as designed, and is just a gateway to a single-payer system. You may want that, but I don't. We have to return the rights of the people to the people. We don't need any stinking drones, etc.

I thought the same way you did, but the research says otherwise - only slight rise in numbers. I also (like most) assumed that exec orders were higher when the opposition held congress, but evidently there have been more issued during unified governments oddly enough...

But again the content is what matters of course. Nixon was the one that started the big shift towards using EOs for policy purposes.

Wes, your "winning" article is not that at all. The article tries to use that Romney's time at Bain until 2001. He left in 1999. They are trying to use documents that had his name on it as CEO when we all know that all documents never get revised that fast. Besides, the laws are the laws. Like I said, money will follow the path of least resistance and our laws are making it so they can do this.

One thing about Obama and Executive orders is congress has not really passed anything as far as budget goes. They have been on a continuous resolution ever since the democrats took over congress in 2006. Besides, what does Executive orders have to do with this? I guess I missed the tie in?

I thought the same way you did, but the research says otherwise - only slight rise in numbers. I also (like most) assumed that exec orders were higher when the opposition held congress, but evidently there have been more issued during unified governments oddly enough...

But again the content is what matters of course. Nixon was the one that started the big shift towards using EOs for policy purposes.

Nixon? Really? Not Lincoln? I think the Emancipation Proclamation was a pretty big deal. Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus... basically Lincoln violated the Constitution. Look up Ex parte Merryman and Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. I am currently taking a class on this very subject.

How so?? It's just a typical method of yours of changing the subject when you are proven wrong or when you contradict yourself. I'm still waiting on a counter from you concerning Reagan "violating the Constitution" by ordering air strikes against Libya, something you proclaimed was the most evil thing Obama had ever done. I also showed that military force has used 192 times in the past by former presidents, without Congress approval. Yet, you just conveniently ignored the facts. So now you have stooped to posting some photoshopped b.s. that probably caused you to laugh uncontrollably. But name one thing Obama has passed (or attempted to pass) in the form of gun control. And no speculative op-ed piece or blog from some loon that happens to agree with your beliefs.

Fanboy,
Have you read about that gun scandal yet? You know where they send guns to Mexico to bolster numbers regarding guns that end up in Mexico and then enact strict gun control? You are so obtuse it's amazing... Any that violates the constitution is bad... Duh... But who cares what you think, you're a complete fanboy it's beyond all rational thought.

BTW Fanboy,
Do ou even know who the guy in the picture is? What he did? Or how his story applies directly to Obama's you didn't build that comment?

That is John Moses Browning. He has so many gun patents it's ridiculous. Many of his designs are still in use to this day, many with no major improvements or changes. When the US Government needed a machine gun cronyism was in full effect and the government didn't want to use Browning's designs because the Feds wanted to use someone else's whom they had a personal relationship with. The Feds came up with a test for Browning's gun, a test so hard that, at the time, no one thought anyone could pass. The general idea was that without anyone passing the test, they could justify going with who's ever design they wanted, if it was the best or not. The problem was, John Moses Browning's design passed every test with flying colors. When it came time for the government to sign a contract for Browning's design he either gave them away, or asked very, very little for them. He did this numerous times. His designs allowed the US to have an advantage on the battlefield in almost every conflict. Even though his designs were the best, the government tried to hinder him every chance that it could. He did build it, even when they told him he could not. He did not do it for personal fortune, he did it for his country. He was eventually run off and moved to Belgium where a monument was erected in his likeness. If anyone has ever built it without the help of the government, it was John Moses Browning. The marines just ordered a huge batch of his 1911 design effectively dumping the 9mm.

But name one thing Obama has passed (or attempted to pass) in the form of gun control. And no speculative op-ed piece or blog from some loon that happens to agree with your beliefs.

Fast and Furious was meant for one purpose, to bolster the demand for gun control by saying that, "Mexicans are dying at the hands of our lackadaisical gun laws."

Obama himself said he was working on gun control. He knew that he couldn't even get it done with control of both the House and Senate; therefore, he had to give his fellow Democrats an out, they had to do it for Mexico.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Did Bush want gun control? Because Fast and Furious was a similar operation that was conducted while W was president (I think it was called Operation Wide Receiver). That is what you are implying that the ultimate goal of this type of operation was for gun-control, and honestly I think it is a stretch. And I don't agree with Fast and Furious.

The way you bounce from point to point, all the while avoiding what you brought up on page two of this thread, makes you seem like the echo of the current GOP (the party you attempt to disassociate yourself from) rally points. I can hear all of this on the discussion page of Sean Hannity or Glen Beck. So I guess next we will be discussing Obama's transcript or maybe his birth certificate or Reverend Wright, etc.

^From the king of deflection, preach on, preach on!!! Still waiting on Libya response.

Once again... reading comprehension, you have none. I made several comments regarding Libya; hell, I even posted a chart regarding Libya. I also stated that any President who doesn't follow the Constitution did the wrong thing.

Can you comment on any action or policy that you believe that Obama was on the wrong side of?

^I rebutted everyone of your claims and posted where Reagan ordered airstrikes in LIbya, without Congressional approval, something you claimed was the "most evil thing Obama has committed", and no response from you. Maybe it is because it was on page 2 or maybe you have some sort of amnesia, but I conjure it is because you have not intelligent retort hence you changing the subject. Reread the posts if you think I am mistaken. As a matter of fact, this is the first time you have mentioned Libya since my rebuttals.

One policy Obama was on the wrong side of was not immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after being sworn-in. Not working to rid us of the Patriot Act are a few.

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you have a business, you didn't build that."
If you actually listen to the statement, there is no pause between the word bridges and the word if, so it is actually the same sentence. So, if you still don't believe the that refers to bridges, you are just Intellectually Dishonest.

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you have a business, you didn't build that."
If you actually listen to the statement, there is no pause between the word bridges and the word if, so it is actually the same sentence. So, if you still don't believe the that refers to bridges, you are just Intellectually Dishonest.

Joe,
If you want to talk context we can... Put Obama's statement in contest with his ideology. Look at his books, look at his other speeches, look at where he went to church for decades, look at his peers, look at his friends, and when you are through looking at everything, the man-child that is Barack Hussein Obama, you still have:

If youíve got a business -- you didnít build that. Somebody else made that happen.

So, if you still don't believe what he said, you are just intellectually dishonest.

And I guess I don't have a "Dream Platform", but I would enjoy a country where we don't wage a war on the poor, but a war on poverty. I would also appreciate lawmakers that choose to take care of our environment and not pollute every river and stream and the forget the idea of drilling in the ANWAR or any other protected area. I tend to believe in the Cree prophecy:

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

I don't believe either party has the ordinary US citizen's best interest at heart, but I cannot vote for Romney and I couldn't even consider voting for McCain after he chose Palin as a running mate. And I lost respect for W for not denouncing the Swift Boat Attack Ads. Again, I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries.

Why in the world would Ron Paul pay into Social Security, lose the possibility of making a profit on his own money for all those years, and then not cash his checks? Is it not his money? Did he not lose the opportunity to invest the money he was forced to contribute? Why shouldn't he get his own money back, plus any opportunity cost?

Why in the world would Ron Paul pay into Social Security, lose the possibility of making a profit on his own money for all those years, and then not cash his checks? Is it not his money? Did he not lose the opportunity to invest the money he was forced to contribute? Why shouldn't he get his own money back, plus any opportunity cost?

Well actually no, that's not how social security works, as I'm sure you know. The program is funded by current workers for the presently retired. So "his money" was spent on retirees as he paid in. It's actually "my money" he's spending now.

"Why in the world would Ron Paul pay into Social Security, lose the possibility of making a profit on his own money for all those years, and then not cash his checks? Is it not his money? Did he not lose the opportunity to invest the money he was forced to contribute? Why shouldn't he get his own money back, plus any opportunity cost?"

That is certainly a fair question(s), but I look at it this way. Ron Paul has reaped many years of collecting "unconstitutional" SS. He is a lawmaker. So let's say he got his way and SS was ruled unconstitutional and no one contributes nor collects another dime. Well, Congressman Paul has collected roughly 10 years worth of payments so he has received some sort of return on his "investment", correct? Well, what does that do for the younger generation (i.e. you and I)? I have been paying into SS for almost 20 years now. Heaven knows that if Paul got his way, we won't get any type of refund on our payments. So in my opinion, if you are against something and you express that in the capacity RP is able to, you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. It just seems hypocritical to me. Maybe not?

Who is intellectually dishonest again?
ANYONE WHO BELIEVES HE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS AND NOT THE BRIDGES!
god, republicans are so intellectually dishonest!
"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." keep living in fairyland, he wasn't even close to saying that, what he said was more on the line of "If you have a business, someone helped you along the way" which I am sure is true in your case.
"BTW, if you look at the Official White House transcript of the speech, there is a period after the word bridges. After the period in the transcript is a capital I, not a small i. Who is intellectually dishonest again? " If you actually watch and listen to what he said, there is no pause between the word "bridges" and the word "if" so technically there should not even be a period. Doesn't a period represent a pause? You will not give me a response to this question because you are intellectually dishonest and cannot comprehend the Truth.
and I cannot help it if Jeremy is smarter than I am.

Jo, do you think Obama is pro business or anti- business? Do you think he comes down on the side of business owners/creators, or on the side of workers? Do you think he appreciates the successful or does he feel that they all got where they are by taking from someone else? Taken in context, out of context, it's the same thing. He does not believe in or support individual success. He simply wants to take from those who are successful and give to those who are not. And it's even worse than that. He doesn't even care about the unsuccessful, he just wants them to THINK he cares about them so they'll vote for him. I'd even carry it further than that to say in Obama's language, you can substitute "Successful" with "White" and "Unsuccessful" with "anything non-white". that's why they've established: Blacks for Obama, DJ's for Obama, API's(Asian/Pacific Islanders) for Obama, Ballers for Obama (yes, that actually exists). He is the most divisive president EVER! It is his mission to divide us up.
Were his specific words "you didn't build that" referring to the roads and bridges? maybe. but the context is still that the business owner/creator is NOT responsible for their own success. That they would NOT be successful if not for the gub'ment. and i have to say that's simply not true. Also, the idea that roads and bridges were built by the gub'ment... where the hell did the gub'ment get the money to do that? from the effin' businessmen that he hates! and with the permission of the constituencies in which the roads were built! More often than not, a new road project or expansion of an existing road is the direct byproduct of successful businesses creating a demand for those services. The gub'ment doesn't build 80% of the roads you drive on anyway. developers do. All the roads in your neighborhood weren't built by anyone other than the land developer who took the risk with his capital to build that neighborhood.
Some on here disparage Romney for being successful. and say we mere mortals cannot relate to his wealth. I'd say the same thing about Obama. His life experiences are so different from those he espouses to care about that he truly cannot relate to them either. Raised by a white woman in elite private schools and supported by God knows who (as while he's demanding that Romney release more tax info, he has yet to release ANYTHING about his past, like how did he get INTO those schools in the 1st place) to go to the most exclusive colleges in the nation.

I'm white and I don't have a problem with Obama. My business has done pretty well under Obama - a helluva lot better than it did under Bush. Everyone knows what Obama meant with the "you didn't build that" line, but ignore the context in order to score some cheap political point.

I'll spell it out in terms that anyone can understand - whether they choose to or not:

A big new freeway has been under construction near me for the last 10 years. A few months ago they opened a big new section that is about 25 miles long. I drove the length of it when it first opened. There were nice new intersections every couple of miles and not much else - dirt, cows, brush, and concrete. In the past couple of months new restaurants and shopping centers have opened and started construction along the freeway and at the major intersections. Do you think anyone would have built a restaurant or strip mall in any of those places without a shiny new freeway to bring customers to them? Of course not. The cities also benefit because the land becomes more valuable and the businesses on it pay taxes.

Just like when the railroad was moving across the country, when the government builds infrastructure, businesses and communities benefit. If you don't understand that then you're really not qualified to participate in the debate.

and for every story like yours there another where a business was destroyed for the same reason.

Also, do you think A.) the federal government was responsible for the development you're talking about? B.) the municipality built it and THEN there was a boom in business, or rather it was already a hot new area of development and then they built it (with your tax dollars, not from some magic gub'ment money tree) which yes, did bring more merchants. or maybe the most likely scenario, is an influential developer had a hand in the approval of the project because he could benefit from the improved road. either way, it's unlikely that the government just simply had the foresight to pop in a new road on it's own.

sorry, re-read the part about dirt, cows and not much else.
I can't speak about dallas, but in Houston, improvements to infrastructure are always after-the-fact. (except for the light rail that NO ONE RIDES!) They expanded the Katy Fwy (I10) because they had to. it was a booming area where people wanted to live because there were nice neighborhoods being built (w/private money). as more people moved out there, congestion was a big issue (as it is where I live), so they expanded the fwy. which yes, has brought even more people and business. but it was the people and businesses first that created the need for the road.

We could continue to debate the chicken/egg thing, but it's still the bigger context of Obama's ideology that success is something to be jealous and envious of and that you're taking away from someone else by being successful and should spread that around more. give more of your piece of the pie to the guy you took it from.

Don't quote me on this but, I thought I had heard coming from someone in the Romney campaign that he has always paid, AT A MINIMUM, 13% of his income in taxes each year. If that is indeed true, how does that not bother everyone, including his supporters?

"because he didn't do anything illegal! Why would anyone pay more than they have too?"

But when lower income people pay little or no taxes (they also aren't doing anything illegal, why would they pay more than they have to?) there is public outcry from the majority of "conservatives", particularly on this message board.

"there is a possibility that Obama got into college as a foreign exchange student. How does that not bother everyone, including his supporters?"

legal tax returns don't cost tax payers any money. The democrats don't want the returns to prove that Romney broke the law, they want to public skew the details of the return in order to illicit more outcry from those that don't understand.

If Obama was a foreign exchange student, he either is lying about his birth certificate, or he committed fraud. not legal either way.....

Romney's tax rate is relevant precisely because he did nothing wrong. The problem that lots of folks have is that he pays a lower marginal rate than the rest of us. Not a dig against him personally, but an illustration of an f'd up system.

Please post link re Obama exchange student story. I follow most credible news sources and have never heard of this.

"Were his specific words "you didn't build that" referring to the roads and bridges? maybe."
He was referring to the bridges, and he did say if you were successful you had help, who doesn't have help, unless you inherit the money.
The point is the republicans have plenty to talk about (like you just did) without taking his words out of context, nice try Romnuts, or maybe they feel they cannot win without twisting people's words around. If you listen to the republicans you would believe we were still in a recession, but I haven't seen any data to support that.
Ohio's unemployment rate is 7.2% looks like oboma will win here.

Some years ago, the casinos came to one of poorest areas of the country. It was known as Sugar Ditch and it was located in Tunica, Mississippi. The casinos built first and the roads followed. In this case, the road overload caused the government (State) to improve the roads which I believe was finally assisted by the feds as part of I-69.

I am in the utility biz. Strangely enough, in this county, when a new subdivision builds, do you know who improves the road in front of said subdivision? The developers, who passes that cost on to the builders, who passes that cost on to the buyers. In other words, you and I. So, who built the bridges and roads besides the taxes we pay? Again, we do. Without the taxpayer, there is no government.

The republicans are called blind or dishonest because we are offended by the words Obama said and are not swayed by the spin put on them so he could recover from his blunder of heart felt words.

As we go on, there are other blunders. Biden reminds me of the elderly Stockdale from the '92 run of Perot for president. However, the difference between Biden and Stockdale is that Biden has never been brilliant and Stockdale's only problem was his age and his discomfort in front of a million plus viewers.

Blacks and whites have something in common now (besides most trying to actually get along and raise families). Both should be very offended at both of the previously embedded videos. Also, where does Toure get off? When did the GOP become the "all white party"?

shawndoggy, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I really don't understand your point. If the left wants to show the masses that the rich take lots of deductions, then just publicize any one of our great politician's returns. They are all wealthy compared to "joe the plumber" and all take the deductions that they are allowed to take. Romney should release what is required, nothing more and nothing less....

The news story? You would not deem it credible. No other media source other than a right wing source would even speculate anything as damaging as that about a democrat.

But......Reid heard from a guy who knows a guy, that Romney hasn't paid in 10 years......or, Romney killed a lady, or Romney wants to throw out the elderly with the trash, or republicans want you to injest poison water and e-coli laced food...........

bahahahaha

I really do hate the double standard from the left. The left invented slander politics......

oh! and David, can you please delete Tucker's video! It automatically plays every time I open this thread. It's annoying as hell!

"can you please delete Tucker's video! It automatically plays every time I open this thread. It's annoying as hell!"

I thought I was the only one. The first problem is, it plays a 30 second commercial. I mean, I open most of the videos guys post on here, granted I may not watch the entire thing, but I will at least listen to the first minute or so to see if it interests me. I now have to remember to mute my computer everytime I open this thread.